As US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE we will not allow our American flag be wrapped around the masked warmongers behind continuous wars. Google FLAG OF MALTA---ST JOHN working with TRIBE OF JUDAH ---those global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS ---and we see who is behind installing these MILITARY JUNTA---and indeed, are MOVING FORWARD to doing the same to US.
We have discussed in detail how our US CIA was taken by KNIGHTS OF MALTA followed by privatization of all of US military-----the CIA actions in LATIN AMERICA were illegal----the continuous wars these several decades were illegal----none of this is AMERICAN.
These articles are written by global banking 1% media outlets-----so do not reflect REAL INFORMATION but do reflect global banking 1% propaganda.
The United States Military Junta - truthout.org
The United States Military Junta. By The Daily Take ... and to hold an American citizen against their will for an indefinite amount of time without being ...
A Military Junta is Now Ruling the United States
A Military Junta is Now Ruling the United States Notes On ... often become policy ... up to 100,000 military personnel and logistical ...
Military Junta in the US? | SpaceBattles Forums
forums.spacebattles.com › … › Non Sci Fi Debates
Military Junta in the US? ... You missed the biggest problem: The military not likely being unified in going along with it. Have you seen who we have now?
How far are we from being a failed state/military junta in ...
How far are we from being a failed state/military junta in the ... or becoming active in their ... military taking control of the United States of America?
As we discussed it was the EISENHOWER ACT in late 1950s handing control of our Federal agencies to global MITRE CORPORATION foreign sovereignty of MALTA that super-sized these covert missions sending trillions of US dollars to create MILITARY JUNTA attached to FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES overseas. So, TRUMP and any generals he installs will simply be doing more of the same. MOVING FORWARD these JUNTA will be inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Remember, the US will be divided into several large FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES each independent having only a sovereign connection to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL. Nothing 'AMERICAN' is MOVING FORWARD. The BUSH NEO-CONS have been the war and security side while Clinton neo-liberals have financed continuous wars.
We see TRUMP is simply the same CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----we watch here in US as ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% civil unrest civil war players manufacture the same POPULATION TENSIONS here in US as occurred overseas and in Latin America----
Let’s Call “Trump’s Generals” What They Are: A Military Junta
Trump is fond of boasting about “his” generals. But over the short course of his presidency’s first months, the possession and control have reversed themselves.
Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly have banished all opposition and now pour the neo-con agenda straight into Trump’s ear.
by Whitney Webb
August 27th, 2017
WASHINGTON – The U.S., long known for its meddling in the affairs of other nations, also has a long and sordid history of supporting military juntas abroad, many of which it forced into power through bloody coups or behind-the-scenes power grabs. From Greece in the 1960s to Argentina in the 1980s to the current al-Sisi-led junta in Egypt, Washington has actively and repeatedly supported such undemocratic regimes despite casting itself as the world’s greatest promoter of “democracy.”
Finally in 2017, karma appears to have come back to roost, as the current presidential administration has now effectively morphed into what is, by definition, a military junta. Though the military-industrial complex has long directed U.S. foreign policy, in the administration of President Donald Trump a group of military officers has gathered unprecedented power and, for all intents and purposes, rules the country.
Three generals at the center of power
In a recent article in The Washington Post, titled “Military Leaders Consolidate Power In Trump Administration,” Post reporters Robert Costa and Philip Rucker noted that “At the core of Trump’s circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.”
“This is the only time in modern presidential history when we’ve had a small number of people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive,” John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations, told the Post. “They are right now playing an extraordinary role.”
This role, however, appears to reach beyond “extraordinary”. Although Trump is fond of calling them “my generals,” they now, Costa and Rucker report, “manage Trump’s hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear – and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.” Another Washington Post article, published last Tuesday, led with the headline “The Generals Have Trump Surrounded.”
Also notable is the fact that this trio of generals has overseen the firing of more independent, “outsider” voices, notably Derek Harvey and Steve Bannon. Bannon, in particular, was a thorn in the side of the generals, in light primarily of his staunch opposition to the American “empire project” and new wars abroad. Bannon had opposed Trump’s strike against Syria, troop surges in Iraq, and the dropped hint of a ”military option” to deal with the crisis in Venezuela. The New York Times referred to McMaster as Bannon’s “nemesis in the West Wing,” precisely due to McMaster’s commitment to American empire building.
With Bannon’s relatively recent departure, the tone of the Trump administration – now unequivocally ruled by “the generals” – has changed significantly — as illustrated by Trump’s decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, a measure both Bannon and Trump himself once opposed.
In addition, last Thursday, Politico published a report detailing the control exercised by Kelly over the president, as he personally vets “everything” that comes across Trump’s desk. Politico referenced two memos that laid out a system “designed to ensure that the president won’t see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven’t been vetted.”
The Hill further noted that Kelly is also “keeping a tight leash” on who gets to meet directly with the President in the Oval Office, which is now strictly appointment-only and also dependent upon Kelly’s approval.
How many generals does it take . . . ?
Kelly, however, is a recent arrival. H.R. McMaster, who took control of the National Security Council (NSC) following Flynn’s ouster in February, has been — at least since April — personally controlling the flow of national security information that makes it to the president. McMaster also took control of the Homeland Security Council and had Steve Bannon, known for his strident nationalism and anti-interventionism, removed from the NSC.
“McMaster is trying to put them [NSC staffers] under his control and either removing or downgrading people who had independent linkages to the White House so that advice will flow through him,” Mark Cancian, a national security expert and former White House official, told The Washington Post in April.
McMaster has drawn more ire than any other of “Trump’s generals” from disillusioned members of Trump’s base, many of whom have pejoratively referred to the NSC adviser as “President McMaster.” McMaster has also overridden many of the Trump’s policies, such as asking South Korea to pay for the THAAD missile system, and has actively pushed for a ground war in Syria and a massive 50,000-troop surge in Afghanistan.
The first of the trio of generals to be appointed to a high-ranking position in the Trump administration was Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Neo-cons like Bill Kristol and Elliot Abrams, along with “an anonymous group of conservative billionaires,” had called for Mattis to be drafted into running as a third party candidate in the 2016 election. Though his candidacy did not materialize as such, formal election appears to have been unnecessary.
Mattis began to take power in March. At the time, Defense One noted that Trump’s generals, including Mattis, “increasingly sound like they’re working for a different president altogether.” Trump’s failure to take the general’s advice was soon met with threats of resignation, shortly after which Trump’s tone changed and he gave Mattis “a freer hand to launch time-sensitive missions.”
The new model of command that arose involved “pre-delegating authority to Mattis; …that authority could be pushed much further down the chain of command – all the way down to the three-star general who runs JSOC.” Essentially, the White House, though still informed of military operations, relinquished commanding authority over the U.S. military to Mattis. Since the great “war power giveaway,” Mattis has overseen the expansion of every theater of war Trump inherited from his predecessor.
The WORLD BANK/IMF must first stage the sacking and looting of a sovereign nation----it then must manufacture civil unrest civil war by handing a billion dollars and access to military weapons caches -----then send in militarized equipment to seize control for a MILITARY JUNTA headed by generals ----who are made billionaires.
This is how AFRICA is MOVING FORWARD to being FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES------and this is what all the violence escalating across the US has as a goal. Whether FAKE 'populist' 5% civil unrest groups---whether lone mass shooters----which global corporation is tied to manufacturing drones and robotics for ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL PRIVATE MILITARY? Amazon.com being that global corporation first to be installed in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Below we see in AFRICA what we will see in US.
'Military junta seizes power in Niger coup
The junta, called the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy, has captured the president and his ministers
Amazon-style "drone delivery" the future of military resupply ...www.army.mil/article/186115/amazon_style_drone... One of the objectives at the Maneuver Fires Integrated Experiment (MFIX) at Fort Sill was to delve into the realm of resupply, looking at ways to deliver supplies to the forward edge of the battlefield using autonomous unmanned aerial systems, The system called joint tactical autonomous air resupply systems (JTAARS) can carry small packages but ...
U.S. Military Is Building a $100 Million Drone Base in Africa
September 29 2016, 6:04 a.m.
From high above, Agadez almost blends into the cocoa-colored wasteland that surrounds it. Only when you descend farther can you make out a city that curves around an airfield before fading into the desert. Once a nexus for camel caravans hauling tea and salt across the Sahara, Agadez is now a West African paradise for people smugglers and a way station for refugees and migrants intent on reaching Europe’s shores by any means necessary.
Document: U.S. Africa Command
Africans fleeing unrest and poverty are not, however, the only foreigners making their way to this town in the center of Niger. U.S. military documents reveal new information about an American drone base under construction on the outskirts of the city. The long-planned project — considered the most important U.S. military construction effort in Africa, according to formerly secret files obtained by The Intercept through the Freedom of Information Act — is slated to cost $100 million, and is just one of a number of recent American military initiatives in the impoverished nation.
The base is the latest sign, experts say, of an ever-increasing emphasis on counterterror operations in the north and west of the continent. As the only country in the region willing to allow a U.S. base for MQ-9 Reapers — a newer, larger, and potentially more lethal model than the venerable Predator drone — Niger has positioned itself to be the key regional hub for U.S. military operations, with Agadez serving as the premier outpost for launching intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions against a plethora of terror groups.
For years, the U.S. operated from an air base in Niamey, Niger’s capital, but in early 2014, Capt. Rick Cook, then chief of U.S. Africa Command’s Engineer Division, mentioned the potential for a new “semi-permanent … base-like facility” in Niger. That September, the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock exposed plans to base drones at Agadez. Within days, the U.S. Embassy in Niamey announced that AFRICOM was, indeed, “assessing the possibility of establishing a temporary, expeditionary contingency support location” there. The outpost, according to the communiqué, “presents an attractive option from which to base ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) assets given its proximity to the threats in the region and the complexity of operating with the vast distance of African geography.”
Air Force documents submitted to Congress in 2015 note that the U.S. “negotiated an agreement with the government of Niger to allow for the construction of a new runway and all associated pavements, facilities, and infrastructure adjacent to the Niger Armed Force’s Base Aerienne 201 (Airbase 201) south of the city of Agadez.” When the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 was introduced last April, embedded in it was a $50 million request for the construction of an “airfield and base camp at Agadez, Niger … to support operations in western Africa.” When President Obama signed the defense bill, that sum was authorized.
Reporting by The Intercept found the true cost to be double that sum. In addition to the $50 million to “construct Air Base 201,” another $38 million in operation and maintenance (O&M) funds was slated to be spent “to support troop labor and ancillary equipment,” according to a second set of undated, heavily redacted, formerly secret documents obtained from U.S. Africa Command by The Intercept. But the $38 million O&M price tag — for expenses like fuel and troops’ per diem — has already jumped to $50 million, according to new figures provided by the Pentagon, while sustainment costs are now projected at $12.8 million per year.
As we discussed with ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS------the chess board pieces exchanged a bishop with a walrus----global banking 5% FAKE freemason/Greek religious players----and exchanged the knight with a carpenter----the developer. These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has seen a DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ----DEPARTMENT OF STATE moving tens of trillions of dollars to overseas development under the guise of continuous wars.
In the process, what was our US public military became the largest employer of GENERALS in world history. Each general being made that global development corporation handing out patronage contracts to encompass a majority of our US economic activity -----overseas.
What WILL happen in MOVING FORWARD is as this article states the downsizing of the KNIGHTS OF MALTA-----as ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE takes hold in US and Western Europe. What was the majority of our US economy tied to military contractors will soon disappear taken by ONE WORLD UNITED NATIONS----GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL.
We read a few decades ago that this purging of generals serving foreign sovereignty of MALTA would soon occur----so, what will an AMERICA as a military JUNTA look like?
Does The US Military Have Too Many Generals?
By James Clark
on May 16, 2016
Looking for a great career? Or know another veteran, service member, or military spouse who is?
The Senate is weighing a provision that would force the U.S. military to cut hundreds of general officers.
On May 12, the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed some pretty substantial cuts to the military’s general and flag officer corps. As part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017, the provision proposes cutting the number of generals by 25%, or 222 of the Department of Defense’s 886 generals and admirals.
According to the committee, the number of general and flag officers has “become increasingly out of balance with the size of the force it leads.”
As of Feb. 29, there were 411 one stars, 299 two stars, 139 three stars, and 37 four-star active generals and admirals, with several more appointed recently. The ratio of officers in the military to the total force size has grown from 15.69% in 2000 to 17.54% in 2015.
The Daily Beast reports that there are 12 generals commanding the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq. That’s one flag officer per 400 troops. That’s about the size of two infantry companies, which are typically led captains, not someone four or more pay grades above.
“Over the past 30 years, the end-strength of the joint force has decreased 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star officers to the overall force has increased by 65 percent,” wrote the committee. “Especially at a time of constrained defense budgets, the military services must right-size their officer corps and shift as many personnel as possible from staff functions to operational and other vital roles.”
According to Time, part of the problem is that there are many generals who are now doing jobs like legal, medical or public affairs, that used to be done by a colonel. In addition to cutting down the overall number of admiral and general officers, the committee is taking aim at its four-star ranks in particular.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Sen. John McCain, wants to cut their ranks by 34%, from 41 to 27. Those who remain would include the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including the head of the National Guard Bureau; the combatant commanders; the commander of U.S. forces in Korea; one additional joint billet nominated by the president, like the four-star command currently in Afghanistan; as well as three additional four-star billets each for the Army, Navy, and Air Force to be filled as the services choose.
It almost goes without saying, but the higher the rank, the more money you make. As reported by Time, in the case of a four-star general, the basic annual pay comes out to $181,500, so eliminating some of these positions frees up that much in more in DoD dollars, not to mention the fact that general officers are often flanked by numerous aides, and those with three or four stars may even count other one or two-star generals and admirals among their entourage.
There’s also the issue of redundancy, with four-star generals and admirals falling under the purview of other four stars.
The Army recently had a three-star position in the Pacific elevated to a four-star billet, simply so it could be on par with the Air Force and Navy commands in the area, all of whom report to another four star, Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., with U.S. Pacific Command. Additionally, the four-star general in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., reports to U.S. Central Command, which, you guessed it, is also headed by a four-star general.
RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY-----what has Bush era CIA civil unrest civil war called its attacks? DEMOCRACY NOW.
So, does America need an ARMED MILITARY JUNTA to take control of our Washington executive and Congressional operations because these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of our US civil society is finished preparing for WORLD BANK/IMF to unleash a few decades of billionaire JUNTAS fighting it out in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----just as happened in NIGER ----NIGER happening just as our Latin American nations several decades ago.
Military junta seizes power in Niger coup
The junta, called the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy, has captured the president and his ministers
David Smith and agencies
Fri 19 Feb 2010 06.27 EST
The junta that seized power in a military coup in Niger today identified its leader as squadron chief Salou Djibo.
Calling itself the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), the junta yesterday stormed Niger's presidential palace in broad daylight. They captured president Mamadou Tandja and his ministers in a four-hour gunbattle that left at least three people dead.
In a televised announcement, a spokesman for the plotters said Niger's constitution had been suspended and all state institutions dissolved. The CSRD imposed a curfew and closed the country's borders.
In a statement today, the CSRD said its leader is Salou Djibo and that government business would be handled by heads of ministries and Niger's regions until a new government is formed.
Other leaders of the coup included Colonel Adamou Harouna, whom military sources said commands the Nigerien standby force of regional bloc the Economic Community Of West African States (Ecowas), and Colonel Djibril Hamidou, a soldier and former spokesman for the junta that perpetrated a coup in 1999.
The CSRD gave no indication of how long it intended to hold power but called on Nigeriens and the international community to support its actions. Tandja, in power for more than a decade in the uranium-rich nation, is believed to be in captivity at a military barracks.
Tensions have been growing in the country since last August, when Tandja, himself a former army officer, changed the constitution to allow him to stay in power beyond his legal term limit. The move provoked a political crisis and threw Niger into isolation.
Ecowas, which has for months tried to broker a solution to the stalemate between Tandja and the opposition, has already said it would punish any unconstitutional power-grab. However, diplomats have indicated that the coup may offer the country a fresh start and open the door for elections.
The soldiers, who said they had acted to end the tense political situation, appear to have won some support among an increasingly frustrated population.
"I hope the soldiers restore some order … clean up the political environment," said taxi driver Moussa Issa. "We need to start from scratch, without being compromised by the current political class which has been discredited over the last 20 years."
Adiza Abdoulaye, a teacher in the west of the dusty capital, Niamey, said: "Right now, I think we will be able to work normally without all the pressure from the street [demonstrations] and the private radio stations the politicians occupied."
An opposition leader, Mahamadou Karijo, welcomed the coup and praised the soldiers as "honest patriots".
"They behave like they say – they are not interested in political leadership, they will fight to save the Nigerien people from any kind of tyranny," he told the BBC's Network Africa.
Lightly armed soldiers were carrying out a small number of patrols today in Niamey, where markets, banks and schools were open as usual.
Niger, one of the world's poorest countries, has experienced long periods of military rule since independence from France in 1960.
During Tandja's presidency, the French energy firm Areva has begun work on the world's second-biggest uranium mine, investing an estimated $1.5bn. China National Petroleum Corporation signed a $5bn deal in 2008 to pump oil within three years.
We discussed in detail how CIA tied to Bush Sr here is 1957 EISENHOWER era------starts the escalation of civil unrest in Central America soon to be followed by Chile/Argentina. It is always a far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty dictator fighting global corporate INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION/WORLD WORKERS MARXISTS----both team global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'Carlos Castillo Armas (November 4, 1914 – July 26, 1957) was a Guatemalan military officer and politician. After taking power in a coup d'état, he served as the President of Guatemala from 1954 to 1957. A member of the right-wing National Liberation Movement (MLN) party, his authoritarian government was closely allied to the United States'.
ARMAS is OLD WORLD SPANISH GLOBAL 1%----our 99% of WE THE BABY BOOMERS having lived through 1960s---70s---80s with TV news on all these LATIN AMERICAN civil unrest civil wars---at the same time Southeastern Asia was continuous wars with these same far-right wing authoritarian rich vs MARXIST REBELS.
'For the United States, the election of Castillo Armas was the culmination of a successful covert operation against international communism. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles declared that Guatemala had been saved from “communist imperialism.” '
This civil war in Guatemala in 1950s was tied to sovereign 99% of Guatemala citizens wanting their land back from global BIG AG. What is happening today in US? A total consolidation of all US cities and FARMLAND into a collective ownership to global corporations.
We simply want our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to remember and think about all that civil unrest/civil war occurring these few decades overseas followed by installation of FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----to see how MOVING FORWARD in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will look just the same.
'the order was aimed at preventing and suppressing crimes that imperil peace and public order, or that could sabotage the economy'
Some of our US citizens may want to wax romantic over these military interventions thinking all this was done for US CORPORATIONS. When we allow these military structures to operate with impunity overseas----we will have a US 99% black, white, and brown citizens getting just the same here in US.
Colonel Castillo Armas takes power in Guatemala
Col. Carlos Castillo Armas is elected president of the junta that overthrew the administration of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in late June 1954. The election of Castillo Armas was the culmination of U.S. efforts to remove Arbenz and save Guatemala from what American officials believed to be an attempt by international communism to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere.
In 1944, Guatemala went through a revolution that saw the removal of a long-time dictator and the establishment of the first democratically elected government in the nation’s history. In 1950, Guatemala witnessed another first with the peaceful transfer of power to the newly elected president, Arbenz. Officials in the United States had watched the developments in Guatemala with growing concern and fear. The Guatemalan government, particularly after Arbenz came to power in 1950, had launched a serious effort at land reform and redistribution to Guatemala’s landless masses. When this effort resulted in the powerful American-owned United Fruit Company losing many acres of land, U.S. officials began to believe that communism was at work in Guatemala.
By 1953 and into 1954, the U.S. government was intent on removing Arbenz from power and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was given this task by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The CIA established a multifaceted covert operation (code named PBSUCCESS). Beginning in June 1954, the CIA saturated Guatemala with propaganda over the radio and through leaflets dropped over the country, and also began small bombing raids using unmarked airplanes. It also organized and armed a small force of “freedom fighters”–mostly Guatemalan refugees and mercenaries–headed by Castillo Armas. This force, which never numbered more than a few hundred men, had little impact on subsequent events.
By late June, the Arbenz government, diplomatically and economically isolated by the United States, came to the conclusion that resistance against the “giant of the north” was futile, and Arbenz resigned on June 27. A short time later, Castillo Armas and his “army” marched into Guatemala City and established a ruling junta. On July 8, 1954, Castillo Armas was elected president of the junta.
For the United States, the election of Castillo Armas was the culmination of a successful covert operation against international communism. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles declared that Guatemala had been saved from “communist imperialism.” The overthrow of Arbenz had added “a new and glorious chapter to the already great tradition of the American states.” Many Guatemalans came to have a different perspective. The new regime rounded up thousands of suspected communists, and executed hundreds of prisoners. Labor unions, which had flourished since 1944, were crushed, and United Fruit’s lands were restored. Castillo Armas, however, did not long enjoy his success. He was assassinated in 1957. Guatemalan politics then degenerated into a series of coups and countercoups, coupled with brutal repression of the country’s people.
NIXON opening China in 1970s was followed by these same far-right wing military juntas fighting these same global banking 1% MARXIST rebels across southeast Asia. Nations installing FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES back in 1980s----90s----were the same embroiled in these FAKE GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' civil unrest/civil war. So, Asian global 1% played tag team to Europe global 1% to completely destroy civil society in these regions to open all that land to seizure for building FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
KISSINGER TO ARGENTINES ON DIRTY WAR:
"THE QUICKER YOU SUCCEED THE BETTER"
Newly declassified documents show Secretary of State
gave green light to junta, Contradict official line that
Argentines "heard only what [they] wanted to hear."
While military dictatorship committed massive
human rights abuses in 1976, Kissinger advised
"If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better."
The Argentine military junta's final report on the
war against subversion and terrorism, April 1983
To cite this article:
(1984) The Argentine military junta's final report on the war against subversion
and terrorism, April 1983, , 7:3, 323-339, DOI:
Today's US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE may not remember that TAIWAN---SINGAPORE----SRI LANKA----all of what we know to have been these few decades of overseas global factories in Foreign Economic Zones------had a few decades of complete civil destruction civil unrest/civil wars just as in LATIN AMERICA. Those sovereign 99% of southeast national citizens did not open their arms and embrace these global corporate factories----those Asian leaders were simply made billionaires to be military JUNTA.
China was no more mad that Taiwan, Singapore were taken to being FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES then they were in allowing these same global banking 1% structures inside their own nations.
Leaders of China, Taiwan to meet for first time since civil war
Published November 04, 2015
BEIJING – The presidents of China and Taiwan have set a historic first meeting for this weekend that offers a shot at posterity for the former bitter Cold War foes after more than six decades of division, while testing recent years of rapidly warming ties.
The sides on Wednesday announced the talks between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese counterpart Ma Ying-jeou on neutral ground in Singapore, the Southeast Asian city-state whose government maintains friendly ties with both. Those would be the first direct discussions between the leaders of China and Taiwan since civil war divided their lands 66 years ago, a highly symbolic move that reflects their quickly improving relations.
Saturday's meeting could be the last chance for Xi to press China's case for closer economic and political ties before Taiwan's January elections for the presidency and legislature.
Already the most powerful Chinese leader in decades, Xi would benefit from a successful outcome to the meeting by appearing to further what China calls the "great goal of national unification."
The meeting is riskier for Ma, whose ruling Nationalist Party is lagging in polls. The elections could serve as an unofficial referendum on Ma's pro-China policies, and his party could be dragged down further by perceptions Ma is pandering to China's ruling Communists to burnish his own legacy and benefit the island's pro-China elite.
A win for the opposition could see a significant curtailing of Ma's pro-China initiatives, something Beijing would be loath to witness.
"This will be tricky politically in Taiwan, as the opposition will obviously use this to charge Ma and the Nationalists with kowtowing to Beijing," said Alan Romberg, East Asia program director with Washington think tank the Stimson Center.
Yet Saturday's meeting could also boost the Nationalists' credentials for driving progress in relations with China and heading off past threats and hostility from Beijing that rattled many Taiwanese. It may also help that the meeting puts Ma, leader of 23 million people, on equal footing with the leader of the world's most populous country and its second-largest economy.
"Ma and presumably the rest of the Nationalists will cast this as demonstrating the benefits of adhering to the 1992 Consensus as a constructive basis for handling cross-strait relations — indeed as the indispensable basis," Romberg said.
The 1992 Consensus refers to an agreement that formed the basis of talks between the two sides, under which both consider Taiwan and the mainland to be one country with separate interpretations according to their own constitutions.
The main pro-independence opposition Democratic Progressive Party has refused to recognize the consensus, calling it meaningless and unrepresentative of popular sentiment on the island.
Formal talks came after Ma, president since 2008, set aside old hostilities to allow lower-level official meetings. Taiwan and China, its top trading partner, have signed 23 deals covering mainly trade, transit and investment.
Ma is likely hoping for even closer economic ties, as well as security assurances from Beijing, which despite warming relations still insists that the two sides must eventually reunite, by force if necessary.
Any concessions Ma extracts from China could help Nationalist presidential candidate Eric Chu in the polls, said Hong Kong Chinese politics expert Willy Lam. Xi, for his part, also hopes a friendly, non-threatening meeting gives the Nationalists a boost, while showing mainland Chinese that he could be the best bet in decades for achieving unification.
Presidents of the two sides have not met since Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists lost the Chinese civil war to Mao Zedong's Communists and the Nationalists rebased in Taiwan, 160 kilometers (100 miles) from the mainland, in 1949. The two sides have been separately ruled since then, with Taiwan evolving into a freewheeling democracy.
Confirmation of the meeting from Chinese Cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office came hours after the Taiwanese side announced the meeting earlier Wednesday.
According to the two, Xi and Ma will be meeting as "leaders of the two sides" of the Taiwan Strait, and address each other by the title of "Mr." A banquet will be held after their meeting.
The arrangements avoid the phrases "countries" and "president," in line with Beijing's insistence that Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, but part of China as a single country.
In a statement, the DPP criticized Ma for planning the meeting in secret and said it appeared to be intended to influence elections.
"This once again shows the Ma government's tendency to do things in a black box, violate democracy and evade oversight, and the public will have difficulty accepting this," the statement read.
Ma is stepping down as president next year after his maximum two terms, and the DPP's candidate Tsai Ing-wen is considered the front-runner to replace him.
Beijing has hoped that economic inducements would lead to greater acceptance among Taiwanese of eventual political reunification. A DPP victory could prompt Beijing to reassess its policies and become more hard-line in pressuring Taiwan into a political union.
Ma's government has come under increasing criticism at home for cozying up to China, amid fears Beijing will eventually leverage economic relations to exert more power over the island.
Such sentiments helped the DPP to a landslide victory a year ago in local elections, raising the possibility it might win not only the presidency but also a majority in legislative elections also being held Jan. 16. The Nationalists replaced their presidential candidate Oct. 17, highlighting their disarray.
Given the chances of a Nationalist defeat, China is likely to proceed cautiously to avoid further alienating Taiwanese voters.
Xi warned Taiwan in 2013 against putting off political differences from generation to generation. China has long advocated a Hong Kong-style one-country, two-system form of joint rule, in which Beijing controls Taiwan but the island of 23 million retains control of its political, legal and economic affairs.
That approach has little currency in Taiwan, where most favor the current state of de-facto independence.
Pro-independence demonstrators rallied outside the legislature in Taipei to protest the planned meeting. One banner urged Ma, "Don't come back if you go."
"We will resolutely oppose this," Hung Te-jen said. "Ma is sneaking around to sell off Taiwan."
What we have seen during BUSH/OBAMA is the movement of US public military personnel out of a more and more and more global privatized military complex. Those 5% freemason/Greek players once part of all these few decades of massive Department of Defense/Department of State movement of trillions of dollars to global development corporations headed by generals are being pushed out-----especially those high-ranking layers of generals-----majors. This downsizing of US 99% WE THE PEOPLE in today's global privatized military does not mean a downsizing of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA. It means our US citizen presence in this military complex is disappearing ----being replaced by global labor pool 99% of private military workers......especially high-ranking officers. Just as our US highly skilled employees are being replaced by global labor pool 99% ----so too are our US military employees.
So, MOVING FORWARD WORLD BANK/IMF bringing the same model for occupying sovereign nations---this time the US being that nation to be occupied-----will have the same global banking 5% freemason/Greek civil unrest civil war players having global banking 1% handing out billion dollars and access to military weapons -----creating lots of MILITARY JUNTAS inside the US especially US CITIES. The US being multi-cultural will see our Asian, African, Arabic, Latin American----our Eastern European, Western European each population group tied to religion----all forming these civil unrest/civil war MILITARY JUNTAS. Groups like Intifada meets white nationalists is just the beginning.
'And adding insult to injury, he would have to retire as a sergeant, earning $1,200 less per month'
Army Cuts Hit Officers Hard, Especially Ones Up From Ranks
Forced to retire after 20 years of Army service, Capt. Elder Saintjuste, in Hope Mills, N.C., will receive a sergeant’s pension.
Travis Dove for The New York Times
By Dave Philipps
- Nov. 12, 2014
A Haitian immigrant who enlisted as a teenager, he deployed three times to Iraq, missing so many birthdays and Christmases that he sometimes felt he barely knew his four children. He hid symptoms of post-traumatic stress so he could stay in the Army, because he loved his job and believed that after 20 years he could retire with a captain’s pension.
Then this summer, on the day Captain Saintjuste reached his 20 years, the Army told him that as part of the postwar downsizing of the force he would have to retire. And adding insult to injury, he would have to retire as a sergeant, earning $1,200 less per month, because he had not been a captain long enough to receive a captain’s pension.
“I worked, I sacrificed, I risked my life, and they took it away like it didn’t matter,” Captain Saintjuste said as he brought groceries into his house near Fort Bragg. “It wasn’t just losing a job. It was like having your wife leave you suddenly and not tell you why. It’s your whole life.”
For the first time since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the Army is shrinking. Faced with declining budgets, the Army, the largest of the services, cut its force this year to 508,000 soldiers from 530,000, with plans to trim an additional 20,000 troops next year. If funding cuts mandated by Congress continue, the Army could have fewer than 450,000 soldiers by 2019 — the smallest force since World War II.
The cuts have largely come through attrition and reductions in recruiting, and have, so far, mostly affected low-ranking enlisted soldiers who have served only a few years. But this summer, the cuts fell on officers as well, 1,188 captains and 550 majors, many who were clearly intending on making a career of the military. More are expected to lose their jobs next year.
And for reasons the Army has not explained, the largest group of officers being pushed out — nearly one in five — began as enlisted soldiers.
For many of those officers, being forced out of a life they have known for a decade or more has been a disruption as shocking and painful as being laid off. They are losing jobs, and in many cases, receiving smaller pensions than they had expected — or no pensions at all. They are being forced to give up their identities as soldiers. Some are losing their ranks or status as officers. All must be out by April.
“It’s our culture, it’s our family, it’s our language,” said Bill Moore, a captain working in intelligence at Fort Bragg. “A lot of us have been in since high school. We feel like we’ve given everything, our families have given everything, and they just give us a handshake and say ‘Thank you for your service.’ ”
Many are being pushed out despite having good records. When the Army announced the impending officer cuts a year ago, officials said they would target officers with evidence of poor performance or misconduct.
But an internal Army briefing disclosed by a military website in September showed the majority of captains being forced out had no blemishes on their records. The briefing, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, also showed that officers who had joined the Army as enlisted soldiers, then endured the demanding process required to rise into the officer corps, were three times as likely as captains who graduated from West Point to be forced to retire.
Many of those former enlisted officers had been encouraged to make the jump to the officer corps between 2006 and 2009 when the Iraq war was raging and the Pentagon was struggling to replace junior officers who were leaving the Army as soon as their initial commitments were over, often because they were worn out by multiple deployments.
The soldiers who volunteered to fill the gap — older than most junior officers because they had already served in the enlisted ranks — were picked from the best of the ranks, and some had to earn bachelor’s degrees to make the cut. Many said in interviews they believed they were being pushed out because they were entitled to more pay and were eligible for retirement earlier, since they had been in the Army longer than other commissioned officers.
“The Army knew we had more years and they could save money by cutting us,” said Capt. Tina Patton, 43, a combat medic who became an officer in 2007. “Looking back at our records, a lot of us can’t figure out why else we would be cut.”
The Army declined to discuss in detail its criteria for trimming the officer corps. “Selections for separation are based on a soldier’s manner of performance relative to their peers while serving as a commissioned officer,” Lt. Col. Benjamin Garrett, an Army spokesman, said in an email. “The boards retained those with the highest demonstrated levels of performance and the most potential for future contributions on active duty.”
Once civil unrest civil war disrupts inside US for a decade or so as US economy collapses----more and more US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE pushed to unemployment----as more global labor pool 99% brought to US Foreign Economic Zones to work are also pushed to unemployment-----what actually becomes the occupying force inside WORLD BANK/IMF failed nations? THE UNITED NATIONS ARMY----peacekeepers in past will be soon a STANDING ARMY for global corporate tribunal ruling all FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
REAGAN WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST OF POD PEOPLE.
United Nations, IMF, NATO and World Bank - The Evil 4 of our World
Critics of the World Bank and the IMF are concerned about the…
'Why the world needs a United Nations army
Ronald Reagan once asked Mikhail Gorbachev to imagine that there was “suddenly a threat to this world from some other species, from another planet”. The late American president speculated that this would ensure “we would forget all the little local…
This is what a MILITARY JUNTA inside each US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE would look like----we can be sure the number of American citizens in these junta will be small or non-existent. Many American citizens think the US controls United Nations but global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS simply use our US Federal taxes to support what is OLD WORLD ----not American.
United Nations Peacekeepers: Which Countries Provide the Most Troops and Funding?
by KFC on January 10, 2017
A Brazil-provided UN Peacekeeper in Haiti
The United Nations has no army, but it does have UN Peacekeepers. The goal of UN Peacekeepers is to create conditions for lasting peace. Peacekeeping is guided by three principles: consent of parties (countries must invite UN peacekeepers to enter; the UN cannot just send peacekeepers anywhere), impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate written in the resolution. Peacekeepers are sent upon UN Security Council recommendations, and often only when ceasefire has already been established as most countries do not want their soldiers to enter into active war zones.
The UN currently has 100,950 peacekeepers as of August 2016 (the latest data available). If the UN peacekeeping force was ranked against national militaries, it would be the 44th largest military in the world, or around the same size as the number of active military troops in Malaysia or Angola.
The 100,950 UN Peacekeepers are currently deployed on 20 UN peacekeeping missions around the world. The largest mission is the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or MONUSCO, with 18,333 UN Peacekeepers deployed.
123 countries currently provide the military troops and police forces that make up the UN Peacekeeping force. Countries can also provide experts as part of a peacekeeping mission.
Here are the Top 25 countries providing UN Peacekeepers:
Burkina Faso (3,036)
South Africa (1,427)
You can find the list of all 123 countries ranked here.